Skip to main content

About your Search

20110701
20110731
Search Results 0 to 12 of about 13
at the post in washington and abroad. and she has covered pakistan and afghanistan extensively, so we are really lucky to have both of them tonight. after the ambassadors opening remarks, he and karen will have a conversation before opening it up to q&a with the audience. so please join me in welcoming ambassador haqqani and karen de young. [applause] >> thank you very much patricia for that kind introduction. of course when i was asked to come here i talked and nobody is paying any attention to pakistan these days. nothing gets said about pakistan in the media so why not use this forum to be able to communicate, and of course find an excuse to be on c-span. [laughter] and so therefore, here i am. it is a pleasure to see secretary mikhail in the audience, judith mchale and i have worked together in the last, since her appointment as undersecretary and public diplomacy of course is one of the many challenges we have dealt with on our and so it is a pleasure seeing you here in thank you for all the help and cooperation that you offer here. and to the distinguished audience many of whom
the afghanistan campaign. and there we find another find of the coffee out. it turns out -- caveat. it turns out some allies simply do not wish to make more where there were no shooting battles. some did it one to fight unless they have helicopters there were all of these rules than pretty soon we started to see the folks who wanted to send soldiers out to the field to have almost insulting checklist so this starts to develop in buy the way i am very careful when a make a statement about the caveat because i don't mean in any way to cut down on the bravery of the troops who are helping us americans out there. and the germans are not very willing to fight because of a historical precedent. it is very difficult for the germans to get over second world war history. please don't and feud any other motive into that. so now you have a copy ought with afghanistan where we're not prepared to use the allies because it is a different kind of four in technology have left them behind and estonia started to do something the russians didn't like then there was a cyberattack that plan and the estonian governme
side the something was not right. something was not right. then let's move on to afghanistan. there came a time when it -- by the way, if you have not read about the account of what a few hundred special forces and armed cia people did in a few weeks in afghanistan after a sit-in for 11th, it is really worth reading. basically destroyed the camps, just a few hundred of them, including some wonderful cavalry horse charges. it's quite a story. but, in 2003 in the united nations says we need to know start stabilizing afghanistan. native took over the afghanistan campaign. and there we find yet another fault line developing. vendettas of fall line whose so-called caveat. some european allies simply did not wish to make war. it wanted areas where there were no shootings. others didn't want to fight at night. some didn't want to fight unless they have helicopters and so on. there were all these roles. we started to see folks who wanted to send soldiers out into the field consulting checklists to see what soldiers you could send out and what you could not. so this starts to develop.
, that there is no military solution to conflicts we're fighting today as in iraq, as in afghanistan, that in the end the resolution of this will be a political matter. and you say that's wrong. the first order of business in winning a war is to kill the enemy fighters. very forthright statement, but one that does go against the grain. and i would ask you to look at afghanistan today and assess whether you think that approach of killing enemy fighters is going to lead us to something that could be called a military solution. >> guest: yes, i do but i'm not saying the military solution is the only part of the solution that matters. there has to be that military solution. there has to be the position of a mine any enemy that you're going to get killed if you go up against the americans. i think that's what's going on in afghanistan now. there was something in iraq in the awakening of the sunnis to the rest of the country, the idea that this is a tribal battle but the americans are not going to be the strongest try. i think that is something that is now being impressed upon the various elements, the tal
about nation building, failed states, afghanistan, iraq, somalia, iraq, haiti, the foreign policy challenges that we've faced weapon have the illusion which i would call the problem of getting to denmark. denmark is in quotations. it's not a real country. it's the mythical place that have low corruption, democracy, stable government, good services delivered very efficiently and so forth. we have the vision of denmark in the back of our heads and go to a place like afghanistan. how are we going to get afghanistan to look like denmark? and it doesn't work very well. and part of the reason that i began to realize was that we don't understand how denmark got to be denmark. i had a visiting professorship, so i've been going. most danes have no idea how denmark got to be denmark. it struck me as a political scientist, this ought to be a book you can go to to say where did political institutions come from. i didn't see one. so i decided to write it. that's why we get the book that i've produced. so i also did not want to write a book on the origins of politics that told this traditional
persecuted because they are christians, whether it be in afghanistan, whether it be in pakistan or in the egypt and all over, the two questions that i have. how many convictions have there been over the last several years? and how many occasions do you know where the american embassy has advocated for these cases? because generally been there is a problem for the members go to the and become the advocate for how many convictions do you know have been cases brought in the egyptian courts and how many times has the american embassy participated and been involved in any different case? >> thank you very much, mr. wolfe. there has been in the 50 cases of i was involved with personally, there were two investigations. meter investigation resulted in any legal process. so there are no convictions resulting as the complaints to the effect of kidnapping forced marriages and forced conversions of coptic christian women. to my knowledge also and according to my research, the u.s. embassy has not advocated on behalf of these women. >> one nice thing, mr. chairman, as you have the record i u
how many of the current inhabitants of guantanamo were arrested in countries other than afghanistan and pakistan. with the help of pakistan. so i think that sometimes we just go from one end of greek allies, great friends which is what was your longtime, in the previous administration, two gosh, these guys are no good, et cetera. this is not the way to do business between two allies and partners. and i think we will not interpret the remarks as a letter. we understand them to be a reflection of american statement of policy, and the americans have the right to defend their homeland by ensuring that terrorists are plotting against the american homeland are dealt with. but as far as the other concern, we are very confident of our sovereignty. we would like to protect our sovereignty. and sovereignty requires that when operations take place in pakistan they should take place without knowledge and our participation. >> a quick follow. does that mean if there's a second rate, that your forces would fire on the rich? >> when i became ambassador to the united states, i went and saw very goo
challenge to the military will leave afghanistan and iraq around the world the budget challenges that face the country. in little over a month, we will mark the tenth anniversary of 9/11. we will honor the victims of that day including 184 people who were tragically taken out by the attack on this very building. and we will renew our commitment to america's dern ability to remain vigilant to these old and new threats that we face, and we are going to redouble with your leadership our efforts to disrupt and feet the terrorists who continue to plot against the united states adding to the great work you have done over the agency. and we will express the american people's appreciation for our armed services, and i might add, and all of you know this who wear a uniform, and your family. the families of the 9/11 generation -- and it's hard to think about it, at least for me, from 9/11, we are, you know, we are ten years away from that day. a lot of these kids were 12 to 15 and under at the time the attack took place and the stepped up this younger generation stepped up to the fact of not just th
to advocate for people who are being persecuted because they're christians whether it be in afghanistan, pakistan or egypt. and the two questions that i have, how many connections have there been -- convictions have there been over the last several years, do you have any -- and how many occasions do you know where the american embassy has advocated for these cases? generally, when there's a problem, members go to the embassy, they advocate it. how many times has the american embassy participate and been involved in any different cases? >> thank you very much, mr. wolf. there have been, in the 50 cases i was involved with personally, there were two investigations, neither investigation resulted in any legal process, so there are no convictions, um, resulting as of, as of complaints to the effective kidnappings, forced marriages and forced converses of coptic christian women. to my knowledge, also, and according to my research the u.s. embassy has not advocated on behalf of these women. >> one last thing, mr. chairman. as you have this record, i urge you to send it to leon panetta. our mi
the war's we have got accustomed to with vietnam, iraq, afghanistan is they are fraught mostly and there are very few among fed dead and wounded who were sensa and daughters of ceos, senators, members of congress or anything like that. it was the exact opposite and avert -- first world war the death toll fell proportionally higher on the upper class. the main reason for that was it was customary four sons of the upper class and aristocracy to have military careers. one major reason for this is that armies are not only there to fight wars against other countries but to maintain order at home. the 19th century was a tumultuous time in europe so was yearly 20th century and european armies were used to break strikes with the british army put down rebellions in ireland and so therefore the officer was generally reserved for those of the upper class is meeting when the country's went to war in 1914 come in the upper class is suffer the enormous toll. for example,, for the 30 graduates of the 10 killed in a single day, the first day of the battle in 1916 come the men who graduated fro
of the budget have been on the military side as we wage the war mechem iraq and afghanistan and participate in exercises in libya that's an expensive up undertaking. we know that has gone up 84%last military spending in the laste ten years 84%. we know the same purpose of time itat spending on mandatoryur programs wouldy, be like social security, medicare, medicaid,vea payments, spending for those u payments over the last ten years has gone up 32%. and we know that the rest of the budget, the so-called domestic diretionary discretionary spending whichde k would include things likerisons building highways, keepingrants federal prisons open, providings pell grants to college studentsr giving children from poor families early childhood education and for research, that's one section of the budgef that's 12% of the budget and in the last ten years that part of our budget has gone up 0%. no increase in spending in thatf section.g goe most of our spending goes into the military, 84% increase over ten years and mandatory programs for 32% over ten years. federal spending, the thing wef: can't seem t
-- vietnam, iraq, afghanistan -- is that they are fought mostly by the poor. there are very, very few among the dead and wounded in the those three wars who have been sons or daughters of ceos, senators, members of congress, anything like that. it was the exact opposite in the first world war. the death toll actually fell proportionately higher on the upper classes. and the main reason for that was that it was customary for sons of the upper classes, sons of the air strock rah si to have military careers. and i think a major reason for this is that armies are not only there to fight wars against other countries, they're there to maintain order at home. the 19th century was a very tumultuous time in europe, so was the early 20th century. many of the european armies were used to break strikes or the british army, you know, put down tenant farmer rebellions in ireland. and so, therefore, officering the army was something that was generally reserved for people in the upper classes. this meant that when these countries went to war in 1914, these upper classes suffered an enormous toll. for examp
in iraq and afghanistan. >> i speak out against the size of the u.s. military budget. we're spenting like 17 times as much as russia and china, and i think it's crazy. we have troops in 65 countries and bases all over the world. what do you think we are, the british empire 200 years ago? i mean, we don't make money off of that, and then they do better without us there. the last war we won was against japan. [applause] >> i'm it is true, you did speak out on it, but a lot of corporate executives, even when they are retired, not just corporate exec ties, but not one in the last election, i can't remember one other than from ohio -- >> that's your home state. >> i like him. the names are hard to pronounce. [laughter] but i think he was the one who spoke out against the size of the military budget. nobody spoke out against it. it's to the military industrial complex like eisenhower warned years ago has taken over the country basically. >> not just the military budget. you got retired, very wealthy business people. no one's going to be able to do anything to them. >> they got successful becaus
Search Results 0 to 12 of about 13